Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am straight and I fully support every citizen having the same legal rights I have. To me, the main problem with marriage in America is, as several others have noted here, a confusion between a civil contract and a religious rite.
I think EVERYONE who is a adult citizen who wishes to marry — and have themselves and their partner recognized as a couple for legal (inheritance, healthcare, progeny, etc., etc.) and tax purposes — should be required to have a civil ceremony conducted by someone vested with legal authority. We would get a license to marry (as we do now) then we would have that license turned into a marriage certificate CIVILLY. That ceremony can be as simple as signing a contract with witnesses or as elaborate (a giant, expensive wedding officiated by a judge) as the couple desires.
If the couple considers their union also to be a religious covenant and they wish to be joined as beloveds before the God of their understanding, by all means they should have a religious ceremony in the church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or hallowed ground of their choosing. And if their God disapproves of gay marriage, the religion in question is free to refuse to unite same-sex couples under their Constitutional right to practice freedom of religion. The only difference from now would be that a religious ceremony by itself would not be enough to get the couple recognized as married by the government, just as a marriage license by itself is not enough. (For example, Jerry Hall's wedding to Mick Jagger on Bali before a Hindu celebrant was not a legal marriage in the U.S. or Britain. Their 1999 "divorce" was a legal dissolution of their "common-law" marriage.)
It's done this way in countless countries right now. Why would it be so hard to institute here? We are all equals under the Constitution. Some of us, therefore, should not have rights that others do not also have. And while I'm on my soap box, I (as a currently unmarried person) should not have to pay higher taxes than those of you who are married in the eyes of the state.
I have several gay friends and am 100% in their corner as far as the "rights" that come with the "marriage license". It makes no sense to me at all that among other things partners should have to sacrifice making life altering decisions due to ones' sexual preference, or to have to sacrifice a pension due to a "partnership as oppose to a marriage".
That said, not one gay friend has been able to explain to me the following:
Why, when marriage has been defined as a male and a female forever, must that definition change? If the important issue is the rights and protections afforded both are equal they why can't the union be defined by another word? It seems to me to blur what the real issue is, equality. I have no problem making the rights of "marriage" identical across the board, but I can't understand why it has to be called marriage. IF the equal rights are the important issue calling it something other than marriage should be fine, in my mind. OR, is the bigger issue really redefining the term marriage under the guise of seeking equality? I am open minded enough to fight for these rights for gay people, I just am having a hard time understanding why what you call it is important. Anyone help?
I have several gay friends and am 100% in their corner as far as the "rights" that come with the "marriage license". It makes no sense to me at all that among other things partners should have to sacrifice making life altering decisions due to ones' sexual preference, or to have to sacrifice a pension due to a "partnership as oppose to a marriage".
That said, not one gay friend has been able to explain to me the following:
Why, when marriage has been defined as a male and a female forever, must that definition change? If the important issue is the rights and protections afforded both are equal they why can't the union be defined by another word? It seems to me to blur what the real issue is, equality. I have no problem making the rights of "marriage" identical across the board, but I can't understand why it has to be called marriage. IF the equal rights are the important issue calling it something other than marriage should be fine, in my mind. OR, is the bigger issue really redefining the term marriage under the guise of seeking equality? I am open minded enough to fight for these rights for gay people, I just am having a hard time understanding why what you call it is important. Anyone help?
I do get what you are saying. It's really a semantics thing, though, and in another ten or 20 years will be irrelevant.
My stance all along is that every civil (non-church) marriage is actually a civil union - nothing sacred or religious about it. Whether gay or straight.
I'm a staunch supporter of gay marriage but if calling it a "civil union" or somesuch makes it easier to ease into general public acceptance, I think that is just fine.
IMHO, the sanctity aspect of marriage is both personal and religious. In reality, legally, marriage is simply a three-way contract between two adults and the state. In the legal sense, I see absolutely no reason why gays should not get married - it is essentially a dry, practical, contract between two consenting adults.. Nothing woo or special about it. Want it to be woo and special - make it a religious ceremony. Churches have their own rules around marriage, and those should also be respected.
My sister and brother-in-law had two weddings. One a religious ceremony in Israel, where they were both living. The second in the UK, to make it legal everywhere.
Sadly, many heterosexuals make babies without any planning whatsoever, or even without the proper income to support a child. Many of these children grow disadvantaged, often living in poverty, and sometimes abused.
And some even grow up gay. That ought to put a smile on your face.
I have several gay friends and am 100% in their corner as far as the "rights" that come with the "marriage license". It makes no sense to me at all that among other things partners should have to sacrifice making life altering decisions due to ones' sexual preference, or to have to sacrifice a pension due to a "partnership as oppose to a marriage".
That said, not one gay friend has been able to explain to me the following:
Why, when marriage has been defined as a male and a female forever, must that definition change? If the important issue is the rights and protections afforded both are equal they why can't the union be defined by another word? It seems to me to blur what the real issue is, equality. I have no problem making the rights of "marriage" identical across the board, but I can't understand why it has to be called marriage. IF the equal rights are the important issue calling it something other than marriage should be fine, in my mind. OR, is the bigger issue really redefining the term marriage under the guise of seeking equality? I am open minded enough to fight for these rights for gay people, I just am having a hard time understanding why what you call it is important. Anyone help?
This was covered on pg. 3, post #81. Marriage has been redefined a lot over history. There were marriages between men and relationships between men as far back as we can see into history. Marriage didn't hold a religious meaning until it was given one long after marriages were occurring without it.
Why do you call yours marriage? If you can answer that it's the answer your seeking from a gay person. Because they want a marriage. Should a gay man ask you to change the meaning of your marriage? Gay marriages have been around for a long long long long time. Christianity decided it was only for procreation and hence deemed it wrong to marry the same sex, after the fact.
When marriage started it was a contract to own a woman. It wasn't for love, or a God. Marriage is ever changing in it's meaning. Gay's aren't changing marriage. Marriage has changed, and can change again in the future to include homosexual unions again.
I'm Gay and I'm scared to death of the idea of Gay marriage!
If I were straight, and it came up for a vote, I'd vote for Gay marriage! Misery loves company!
Or "Marriage is and institution and love is blind... the whole thing is an institution for the blind."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christianity decided it was only for procreation and hence deemed it wrong to marry the same sex, after the fact. 